Adelaide, Australia.

Don't hold back Judge, say what you think!!

Is that right in your quote Mr. I, that in Australia there are twice as many drug addicts as there are people working? Sounds like they need even more Social Workers.

Always intrigues me when people say you can choose to be what you are. What on earth do they mean? Is it at all feasible that folk should choose to be depressed, alienated and in pain?

Everyone has a choice, except for extreme circumstances such as human trafficing and enforced prostitution, nobody forces that first needle into your arm. I don't for a second believe that everyone has the same chances in life but for sure everyone has a choice of whether they sink into the world of drugs or not.

But choosing to do the first needle isn't the same as choosing to become a junkie.
What I'm trying to get at is that at root it's a matter of your psychology and your situation, with all that implies. People who abhor junkies are often people who, to use shorthand, don't have addictive personalities themselves so they perhaps don't understand the pressures.
I think personalities are much more 'given' than chosen. I'm not an addict, but I don't choose not to be, I'm just not.

Yes it is.

What pressures wouldnt I understand

The pressure to get up at 6am every day and drive an hour and fifteen each way 5/6 days each
The pressure to pay my rent, bills , cook and clean
The pressure mothers and fathers have to work and look after kids and cook and clean...
Or the pressure to say no when offered to inject?

Yes there are people who have to do things I couldnt imagine, but is EVERY drug addict in Hartlepool from a broken home?, I would hazard a guess they arent

OK that above is a black and white, but everyone faces major problems and pressures and doesnt resort to substance abuse

Well, all I can say is what I've said already...that no-one would consciously choose the utter abject misery of being addicted.
I know I have weak spots myself (pretty sure you two have too) that I've tried to change and can't. So on topics like this, I just think, there but for the grace of god.....

the people of which you speak form a minority in my opinion - the majority of drug users CHOOSE this way of life as a cop-out because they already have it all mapped out for themselves - counselling, free (to them at least) legal aid, free (to them at least) medical help etc etc.
It may be the case this judge is wrong about the individual, but I would be willing to bet that he isn't.

But, parmo, you surely can't mean that people sit down and think, 'Now, how can I get legal aid, counselling and medical help. Ah yes, I shall become a drug addict." That sort of doesn't ring true, does it?

I think that should be seventy.

I caught you knockin'
at my cellar door
I love you, baby,
can I have some more
Ooh, ooh, the damage done.

I hit the city and
I lost my band
I watched the needle
take another man
Gone, gone, the damage done.

I sing the song
because I love the man
I know that some
of you don't understand
Milk-blood
to keep from running out.

I've seen the needle
and the damage done
A little part of it in everyone
But every junkie's
like a settin' sun.

Still a lot I make that 20%.

Ok then, 170.

Why, that's hardly any at all - don't know what the fuss is about.

Sadly, only joking - every single one is a terrible waste for both the person & society. Unfortunately society has winners & losers & the pressures to be part of it all are sometimes too much. Call it mental illness or any other explanation you like. Some people are written off at a young age and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy - they then associate with similar people and usually get involved in the drugs scene and I would include heavy drinking in that as well.
Maybe the judges shock tactic may work on some and act to pull them out of their downward spiral.

you assume that every addict is taking from the system.I know guys that work in the city and are off their tits most of the day,they don't seem to be looking for handouts,not yet anyway.In fact on the face of it they're doing very well and if they can get out early and kick the habit,jackpot.

Just like those who choose not to work because they are better off on benefits. Women who get pregnant to have more kids 'cos they get more child benefit. They're usually all from the same families who know nothing but living off benefits for generations!!!!

OK you've convinced me

Can you have a word with the (Lib Dem) leader of Liverpool Council please? His latest move in our ASBO-strewn streets is to refer to teenagers as "Vermin"..... as you say, it's likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.....

We should take all these people who decide to become drug addicts and lock them up and whip them till their backs bleed then push hot needles into their testicles then send them to Devil's Island then when they come made them work in sewers shovelling shit for the rest of their days. That'll teach them to be a drug addict lightly. The same goes for women who decide to sprog for state cash.

what about sparking yer first tab?!



[hows that going btw?]

As a non smoker I don't feel able to comment

A lot of junkies do consciously choose drug addiction as a lifestyle and drug addiction isn’t abject misery. Heroin users are physically and emotionally insulated against the hurts of everyday life that everyone has to deal with and this is the attraction. Whilst supplies are available there’s no mental anguish attached to addiction, quite the opposite, that’s the idea.

The abject misery comes of course when the user’s habit escalates and money has to be found to service it. That’s when the constant quest for the next fix starts along with the living from hand to mouth, the thieving, the deception, the accumulation of dealer debt and associated violence begins.

Does this happen because personalities are ‘given ‘ and there’s an inclination towards addiction from birth and the individual has no choice. That is an argument that there are born losers, which I don’t believe. There are too many people who have escaped the worst of starts to life and are eminently successful. There are also people who have escaped heroin addiction and become successful. Individuals do have a choice and are responsible for their own destiny

I know, I heard it on Radio 4 so it must be true.

If I know Radio 4 there was at least one other person on the panel, whose view was the exact opposite of this!! You don't exactly say why you chose to side with this one.......but one thing you'd have to do is produce evidence that people choose to become addicted rather than just choose to take drugs (which would be another argument.)

If people could choose their personalities, E, we'd all be like our heroes/heroines, ot at least more like them than we are now.
Or perhaps you think you're already like yours?

I take the point that there’s a difference between deciding to take drugs and deciding to become a junkie but there’s a lot of information out there about consequences.

We all know that marijuana, cocaine, LSD, E’s and a whole load of other stuff isn’t addictive but you can become psychologically dependent. There are a lot of casualties around because of the softer drugs, the punch-drunk LSD users and the little lad I know suffering from all sorts of anxiety problems because of the amount of E he was able to buy with his student loan…….. but I digress.

Unless they’re from a different planet everyone knows that along with tobacco, heroin is addictive and crack is highly addictive. I’d guess there’s a lot of people around who’ve tried smack and then left it alone and there’ll be weekend users teetering on the brink but I don’t believe there’s anyone experimenting in that area that doesn’t know that habitual use of heroin brings with it the non-optional extra of addiction.

Heroin operates as a lifestyle, I don’t suppose they say "I think I'll start being an addict today", there's a lot of denial involved and I’d guess that a lot of them feel they’re different to everyone else and can control it. That’s when a proportion of the dabblers choose not to walk away, become more heavily involved and the inevitable happens.

As with the Scottish Hellfire sermon, the sinner said,

“ Ah Lord, I’m here sufferin’ in tha flames of hell an’ its agony. I dinna ken it wad be see awful”.

And The Lord replied

“Weel ya ken noo!”

The point being they’ve been told but choose to disregard what everyone knows. There'll be cases with extenuating circumstances but I don't believe they're victims of their genes.

Genes linked to high-risk personalities
18:05 17 June 2003
NewScientist.com news service
Shaoni Bhattacharya

People who smoke, take street drugs or become heavy drinkers may be genetically predisposed to their habits, suggest the results of a large new study.
By combining 46 previous studies, scientists have definitively linked two genes to personality traits thought to make people more likely to take up risky lifestyles.
The analysis of the data from over 20,000 people linked a particular version of a gene for the transport of the neurotransmitter serotonin - 5HTT-LPR - to having a more anxious, neurotic personality.
And a version of the gene for a receptor of the neurotransmitter dopamine - the D4 receptor - was associated with having a more outgoing personality. It is well-established that both these personality traits are more likely to lead to substance misuse.
"Our study suggest that there's a genetic basis to certain kinds of personality trait, which may be important in influencing whether people take up habits like smoking or whether they can subsequently give them up," says Marcus Munafõ, team leader of Cancer Research UK's GP research group in Oxford. In the future, pharmaceutical or behavioural treatments could be tailored to the type of person you are, he told New Scientist.
Among the health risks associated with substance misuse is an increased chance of cancer, notes Robert Souhami, director of clinical research at Cancer Research UK. "These people may be resistant to conventional health messages and may need subtler health warnings, or perhaps specific anti-addiction treatment for their particular personality type," he says.
Novelty seeking
The researchers analysed 46 studies examining the association between genes and behaviour. Munafõ a psychologist, says that the individual studies have come to conflicting conclusions.
Only two genes were "robustly related" to behaviour, found the analysis. A short version of the serotonin transporter gene was strongly linked to neuroticism. Serotonin is known to control emotions like anxiety and depression. The short version of the gene was associated with lower levels of serotonin activity.
"If you have very high natural levels of anxiety you are more likely to smoke," says Munafõ. "If you belong to the group with the short version of the gene, on average your neuroticism score will be 10 per cent higher."
But he adds: "It's high, but still only part of the story." Environment, such as childhood experience or diet, will also have a large influence on how genes are expressed.
Variations in the gene for the dopamine D4 receptor may affect how extravert a person is by altering the brain's response to the neurotransmitter, although this link was less strong. Dopamine is thought to be associated with novelty seeking behaviour and pleasure - which could make a person more likely to try new substances.
The group is currently analysing new data on how genes and personality influence nicotine dependence in a smoker. A relationship between the three "looks promising", says Munafõ.
Journal reference: Molecular Psychiatry (vol 8, p 471)

If you don't agree with this, I think you have to come up with an explanation of how you exercise choices without using the genes, biochemistry and social support etc at your disposal

Extracts from the NS paper

Point1
People who smoke, take street drugs or become heavy drinkers may be genetically predisposed to their habits, I agree

Point2
Scientists have definitively linked two genes to personality traits thought to make people more likely to take up risky lifestyles.

The analysis linked a particular version of a gene to a more anxious, neurotic personality.

And a version of the gene was associated with having a more outgoing personality.

It is well established that both these personality traits are more likely to lead to substance misuse.

May be important in influencing whether people take up habits like smoking or whether they can subsequently give them up,"

Point3
Only two genes were "robustly related" to behaviour, found the analysis. A short version of the serotonin transporter gene was strongly linked to neuroticism

"If you have very high natural levels of anxiety you are more likely to smoke,"

I don’t doubt it

Point4
But he adds: "It's high, but still only part of the story." Environment, such as childhood experience or diet, will also have a large influence on how genes are expressed.

So genetic predisposition can be modified by environment and culture

Point5
Dopamine is thought to be associated with novelty seeking behaviour and pleasure - which could make a person more likely to try new substances.

The group is currently analysing new data on how genes and personality influence nicotine dependence in a smoker. A relationship between the three "looks promising",

I’ve tried to précis the NS paper to identify the relevant bits whilst still keeping the full sense of the piece. Honestly I’ve not buggered about with it to prove a point.

The paper identifies the fact that some people inherit a genetic tendency expressed through their personality towards novelty and pleasure seeking and taking more risks than others who don’t have those particular gene types and I accept that tendency includes experimenting with drugs.

To paraphrase, the paper doesn’t say they will become junkies it says that they are more likely to than the rest of the population. i.e. they may be more inclined but I would argue that they still have a choice because of the ability for genetic tendency to be modified by environment and culture. They have a tendency not a predestiny.

I doubt that this predisposition stops at what they call substance misuse and that a whole load of other risk taking behaviour is similarly influenced. I’d hazard a guess that there’s a big proportion of people who stick their neck out by expressing personal views on the Poolie Bunker who have this genetic personality trait. There are certainly a few (ex)smokers by all accounts.

I note that the research was carried out on behalf of Cancer Research UK. If this research had been commissioned by the Arts Council to see if there was any genetic tendency towards involvement in the arts, music and other ‘pleasure seeking/risk taking’ activity, I bet the same data would have demonstrated that there’s a large proportion of people involved who have inherited this genetic personality type.

Not everyone with the genes becomes an artist unless they choose to.

Not everyone with the genes becomes a junkie unless they choose to.

Well, the barstard wouldn't eat his greens that his mother had slaved over

In answer to Mr Frodraff : predictably this has become too complicated to pursue on here. I challenge you to a duel at some future date....

Just to say... many many genetic links involve input from other factors, (e.g diet and childhood experience, as the article says )but often those other factors simply compound the difficulty some individuals have in exercising choices. Other people are more fortunate and have say, only 2 predisposing factors, and therefore find it easier to resist negative 'urges'.

To conclude, if someone has the odds stacked against him, i would rather sympathise and try to help than condemn. But that's my choice!

By it's very nature research is inconclusive. It just becomes a statement of possibilities and likelihood.